YOU can EASILY Get girls/guys you want if you understand or you can grab Gene Pool Survival Guide with How to Learn Math e-Book for Maximum Saving Written by world's #1 life guru. Also a mensa member that won international math competitions. There are ways to get what you want effectively. The most effective ways are almost always politically incorrect yet done by every winners. Math and common sense can see through important obviously true laws of life that most people will simply deny. Knows the truth. The truth will, besides getting you laid and rich, set you free. |
|
Discover guaranteed proven new safe way you'll love and save
money. This is my first answer. If you think it’s low quality please comment so I can fix it okay. I know I need citation. I will ask around in sceptic and get my citation.
Yes but nowhere like the way opponents of prostitution and women trafficking want us to believe.
Say government want to legalize commercialization of smart phones. Will import of smartphones increase? Yes. So what?
Will those whose job are being replaced by the oversea workers complain about it? Yes. Will they complain that their job is lost or will they complain that the foreign workers are underpaid? Both. In fact, it’s not politically correct to bitch about your own selfish interest. It’s far more politically correct to bitch that you actually care about others. So people tend to complain on something far difference than their real issue.
About many americans complain that job moved to China is already obivious. Just look at here. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp188/. In fact if I ask “Are there many american that complain about jobs moving to china?” I bet I’ll get downvote. Very well, I’ll ask anyway.
To be frank, all assumption I used is that humans max out profit and basic economic principle. Yes I am a libertarian. Yes I am sceptical on any laws against consensual acts.
Say government want to legalize commercialization of sex. Will import of sex worker increase. Most likely yes. That’s the whole point of criminalizing, namely to reduce demand. It’s basic economy. Criminalization is like taxing. It imposes penalty against a certain service. When government tax something government reduce both production and consumption. Taxing cigarette, for example, will reduce cigarette consumption. Taxing cars will reduce production of car. That’s basic economy 101.
Will those women who are being replaced by cheaper sex workers complain about it? Yes. In economic term, prostitute is a substitute service/product for wife/girl friend. Yap they directly compete like Xbox vs playstation. I know I need citation.
Will they complain that they can’t compete with cheaper sex workers or will they complain that somehow the trafficked women are oppressed? The latter. In fact, it’s politically incorrect and embarrassing to bitch about not being able to attract a mate. It’s far more politically correct to bitch that they actually care about those trafficked women.
Some background.
The reason why prostitution is prohibited is most likely not there to protect women that want to be prostitute. Think about it. Humans are selfish (do I need to cite for this?). How can we protect anyone from their own consent. C’mon. We’re sceptic here.
A much more plausible reason is to protect men. If prostitution is legal, women’s market price will go up, most males can’t afford it. In other word prostitution is prohibited to prevent competition.
Women trafficking are often consensual. Even those opposing it admitting it
Here just look at the Every year mainly women and children are frequently trafficked. People do not report cases of trafficking. Illiteracy rate is very high and trafficking is often consensual; even parents or husbands sell off their children/wives. We need them to make a complaint before we can take action, but the victims do not.
http://www.childreach.org.uk/our-work/bangladesh
Red queen from Matt Ridley says that women prefer the rich. Isn’t it natural that women from poorer countries want to immigrate here to find a mate?
In fact, look at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_women
(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;
The law specifically prohibit women trafficking DESPITE consent. That’s because the lawmakers knew that most of those women consent and that trafficking MAYBE consensual. Isn’t that strange how they said that women consent is irrelevant?
I mean if people care about me if people claim about wanting to help me the first thing that’s relevant is my consent right? They said women’s consent is irrelevant. Do you think they care about women’s interest?
Okay, I need more sources to decide how many women trafficked actually consent.
I know 5 of the most beautiful girls in my high school are in western world. No they are not trafficked, but desire to move and “find rich white guys” is not that far fetch. Seriously guys. I have a niece that explicitly told me he only wanted to date white guys.
We know many women in poor countries MAY (with very high probability actually) want: 1. Richer males (richer whites) 2. Money (Men and women want money, everybody want money).
To say this can’t be consensual is just insane.
Humans max out their own interest. I am a businessman, I hired employees, I was screwed by fraudster, if there is any thing I know how to predict what people would do is their selfish interest. Mutually consensual means mutually beneficial. Obviously.
Prostitution is prohibited for the same reason polygamy is prohibited. To protect men that can’t pay rather than women. You can read Matt Ridley’s book, the red queen, for more info on this. You can read more discussion here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/krdd8/why_is_polygamy_illegal/ You can also read Get rich bang bitch http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/38264
If you want source, just look at here Far from being laws to protect women, anti polygamy statutes may really do more to protect (less desirable) men” – Matt Ridley – The Red Queen .
Matt ridley is a prominent evolutionary psychologist. It’s already mainstream science.
Also economic theory is based on the assumption that humans’ max out their profit. To see that a lot of women protest against women trafficking, despite consent from the trafficked women because they care about the trafficked women is preposterous. Again, extra ordinary claim require evidences. If you want to show me that humans actually care about others so much in this case, you need to show me.
A lot of male admit that they can’t compete with more desirable male and argue that it’s the reason why we should keep polygamy illegal. Just look at here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/krdd8/why_is_polygamy_illegal/. Yea it’s sugar coated with ideas that polygamy is not compatible with democracy yada yada yada… But you’ll see the same.
It’s natural to expect that prohibition of prostitution is based on the same thing.
What about women trafficking? It’s the same thing. Women trafficking is there to protect, oh well, women. However, it’s not there to protect trafficked women. Women trafficking is there to protect women in rich countries from having to compete with cheaper and prettier women from poorer countries.
In other word, even if all trafficked women are happy having sex with richer guys, I would bet that many women would still oppose this so called women trafficking. They have enough huge motive to prohibit trafficking irrelevant of consent.
It’s the same reason I know why MANY males have huge motive to prohibit prostitution and polygamy irrelevant of consent. It’s the same reason why racist anti immigration want to prohibit immigration irrelevant of the consent of the immigrants.
There are true motives, there are justification. The latter can be anything. The motives most easily explained away from selfishness is obviously the most correct. Humans, after all are very selfish.
The majority of so called trafficking is VERY consensual. I mean it’s very obvious. One can more easily argue that marriage is less consensual than trafficking and prostitution.
After all, why would anyone allow government to be the pimp of their sexual relationship with no force whatsoever. Why would any rich male want to bet half his assets for a woman? And why would most women choose to be the only one for poorer males than sharing a richer males?
Imagine if all kind of marriage and all kind of commercialized sexual relationship is legal. Would anyone still get married? How much?
Many culture have restriction against sex outside marriage. Society actually prohibit prostitution and yet women do it anyway. That’s how much many women want to be prostitute.
Does legalizing prostitution increase women trafficking? Again, this is another vague language that’s hard to answer. Imagine if prostitution is legal. Imagine if women trafficking include consensual women trafficking. The legal definition actually DOES include consensual women trafficking. I do not think anyone can use “But the women agree” argument to defense against women trafficking.
Of course it does. When things are legal, then more people would want to do it.
So yes more will want to do it. However, it’s no where as what those anti freedom people want us to believe.
It’s like asking if government stop tariff against import goods will there be more import goods? If government make iPhone legal, will there be more iPhone? Yes. It’s the way it should be.